Higher Education and Democracy - Private Financing of Higher Education and Democracy: The Case

Higher education and democracy are intertwined. While democracy emphasizes equal access, participation, accountability, good governance, human rights, and citizenship; higher education on the other hand builds a foundation for democracy especially in the contemporary world of complex politics. For example, among top twenty-five (25) countries³⁵ listed as fully democracies (Democracy Index, 2007; Democracy Index, 2012) majority were reported³⁶ to have affordable and accessible higher education. Access to higher education is thus one point to promotion and safeguard human rights. Supportively, Ambrose (1995:33) asserts unequivocally that ‘the degree to which citizens enjoy democratic rights determines the measure of human rights protection those citizens enjoy, since both concepts are interdependent and mutually self-reinforcing’. This is to say, democracy is a replica of human

35 Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Ireland, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Malta, Spain, United States, Czech Republic, Portugal, Belgium, Japan, Greece, United Kingdom, France, and Mauritius.

36 Usher, Alex and Cervenan, Amy (2005) Global Higher Education Rankings 2005, Toronto: ON Education Policy Institute; Usher, Alex and Cervenan, Amy (2010) Global Higher Education Rankings: Affordability and Accessibility in Comparative Perspective, Higher Education Strategy Associates.

rights, and thus, the more states respect and promote human rights the more democracy the states explicate. Democracy has been intractably defined. Usually, many commentators have opted for a definition that will solve their problems, assist economic progress, or influence public opinion (Ambrose, 1995:16). This study does not perverse from such motif rather it must be noted right from the outset that liberal definition of the concept is more proselytizing under this study. Democracy is as a result narrowly construed to mean electoral democracy. It is often accepted as a minimum measure of a democracy state. Individuals would cite free and fair elections, responsive government, multiparty competition, majority rule or popular control, accountability, decision making, as elements to define democracy.

Similarly, Beetham (2005:2) defines democracy as a procedure for taking decisions in any group, association or society, whereby all members have an equal right to have a say and make their opinions account. In the same vein, Birch (2007:110) asserts that in the 19^th Century, the term democracy came into use to describe a system of representative government in which representatives are chosen by free competitive elections. Both conceptions lead to the whole notion of government of the people, for the people, and by the people. It is a government elected by the people for their benefits. It therefore, means a government that represents people’s likes and dislikes and thus accountable to the people. In a more elaborative way, Tilly (2007:7) explains that there are four main types of definitions of democracy. These are constitutional, procedural, process oriented, and substantive, whereas, observers of democracy and democratization generally choose implicitly or explicitly among these definitions. According to him a constitutional definition concentrates on laws a regime enacts concerning political activity. This generally puts much emphasis on the form of a political system. The assumption is that there is a link between a form of political system and democracy. Accordingly, it paves a way to a distinction among constitutional monarchies, presidential systems, and parliament-centered arrangements. It also points out variations as federal versus unitary structures. It is imperative to note that this definition tends to focus on the practicability of democracy. Elements like legitimate government, accountable government, people’s participation in decision making, responsive government, rule of law, independence of judiciary, public opinion, and separation of powers are more pronounced while defining democracy.

Procedural definitions of democracy single out a narrow range of governmental practices to determine whether a regime qualifies as democratic. The attention is directed to elections. All elements imbedded to elections such as a competitive multiparty political system, universal adult suffrage for all citizens, regular contested elections conducted in conditions of ballot secrecy, freeness and fairness are spruced up for democracy. Without a doubt, this definition attempts to restrain democracy to election processes. On the other hand, process-oriented definition differs significantly from other accounts. Notwithstanding, it is prima facie broader but restrictive. It is broader in terms of processes employed in achieving democracy. The emphasis is put on how well or bad the process is? However, it is restrictive in terms of the range of issues to be addressed. Definitely, it is restrictive to electoral processes. For instance, Robert Dahl in Tilly (2007:9) enlists effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, and inclusion of adults as primary to defining democracy. It is thus skeptical not to define democracy subtle to elections as far as process-oriented definitions are concerned. Therefore, the above definitions are equated to democracy with practices of governments in safeguarding civil and political rights of man. Elections are taken as primary in explicating the core elements of democracy. Yet, it is alluding that the above definitions provide a narrow conception of democracy.

Substantive definitions of democracy are broader. They focus on conditions of life and politics a given regime promotes. Elements like human welfare, individual freedom, security, equity, social equality, public deliberation and peaceful conflict resolution are prominent in defining democracy. The emphasis is exerted to the possible outcomes of democracy. In support of this broader view of democracy, Gastil (1993:5) observes that democracy connotes wide-ranging liberty, including freedom to decide one’s own course in life and the right to play an equal role in forging a common destiny. It is generally, argued that democracy is well defined in terms of individual rights and liberties protected by a democratic form of government. Related to this outlook, Tandon (1979:1) argues that democracy is a material question. It concerns the lives of people in their daily struggle for existence. According to him, the material question is the root to democratic analysis and thus equal rights for people at the political and social levels. Marshall (1992; 2009) expounds the material question of democracy to have social dimension to public images (democratic citizenship)³⁷. Democratic

37 Marshall implied a comprehensive equality of rights to civil freedoms. He went further to state that political citizenship (democratic suffrage rights) indicates the right to participate in the political process which determines the conditions of one’s life. Therefore, the focus of the argument lies on the individual citizen. The more a

citizenship at this juncture is understood in terms of civil liberties. Citizenship denotes the membership and identification with a city (nation/state) of one’s birth, a collection of duties, an eligibility to participate in the adjudication processes of the city (Vincent, 2010:208). It is from this view point where one may argue that the life of a citizen has a very close link with democracy in a number of ways. Participation in civic duties by citizens assumes a guarantee of rights by democratic governments of the day. Vincent (ibid.) encapsulates that, ‘citizenship designated the consciousness of the ends of human life as embodied in the institutional forms of the public life. It was a disposition, where the individual developed to a level of self-consciousness and ethical awareness inclusive enough to be identified with the public sphere of the whole community’. It is submitted that the relationship between citizenship and human rights is undeniable.

A citizen actively participates in civic affairs with implicit proviso that a range of rights are guaranteed. However, democratic citizenship is a crucial element of civic culture. Civic culture has dual functions in building democracy. First, it concerns with the acceptance of the authority of the state. In simple terms, it concerns with legitimacy of the state. The point is, all legitimate states are to a greater extent accountable to the people and thus, ensuring a higher respect of human rights. The second relates to a belief in participation in civic duties. It calls for peoples’ participation in all matters of their concern. Stiglitz (2002:165) says

“participation does not refer simply to voting. Participatory processes must entail open dialog and broadly active civic engagement, and it requires that individuals have a voice in the decisions that affect them.” Generally, Birch (2007:146) points out that the existence of channels for public participation in the political process is likely to increase the propensity for citizens to comply voluntarily with governmental rules and orders; and that if people have had the opportunity to play some part in the selection of public officials, to communicate their views on public issues, and to exert pressure on decision makers, they are more likely to accept that governmental decisions are legitimate, even if they disliked, than would be the case if citizens did not have such opportunities. Almond and Verba (1963:9) reiterate that theories of democracy from Aristotle to Bryce have stressed that democracies are maintained by active citizen participation in civic affairs, by a high level of information about public affairs, and by a widespread sense of civic responsibility.

citizen is protected with rights and freedoms the more active participant in political process would be. In turn, the political process determines individual’s life (political, socio-economic and cultural welfare).

It is therefore, proper to argue that democracy exists where citizens are active participants.

Citizens become active participants when they are guaranteed a range of rights (civil and political, socio-economic and cultural rights). In other words, the democratic governments have to fully promote and safeguard human rights. Notwithstanding the fact that, to social rights the provision of social services to those in need is central to ensuring the general welfare of others. Other commentators such as Huber (1992; 1997) go as far as saying that unless individuals have sufficient resources to meet their basic social needs democratic principles of political equality and participation are meaningless. Without prejudice, this study employs a broader definition of democracy due to its nature and demands. The question of access to education is one of the most important bases of democracy and human rights. With education citizens become informed, responsible, and above all active participants in political, socio-economic and cultural affairs. These include: decision making, accounting the government, voting, organizing political parties and interest groups/pressure groups, and working hard for developmental purposes, to mention a few. A number of commentators have argued in the same line. For example, Marcy (2002) says “...the need for citizens to be educated assumes profound importance. Education in this vision of democracy calls on classical notion of an informed citizenry – individuals who are able to think, reason, analyse, and reflect with discrimination and care.” Similarly, Lipset (1959:79) states that “education presumably broadens men’s outlooks, enables them to understand the need for norms of torelance, restrains them from adhering to extremist and monistic doctrines and increases their capacity to make rational electoral choices.” He went further to conclude “the evidence bearing on the contribution of education to democracy is even more direct and strong in connection with individual behaviour within countries.”

Education is a right (ICESCR, 1966 Article 13). Rights are the foundation of democracy.

Education is therefore a foundation of democracy. Nash (2009: 94) says human rights are designed to enable conditions for democracy, in the case of absolute rights to personal freedom, and to be interpreted flexibly relative to the interpretations of particular political communities in the case of great majority of human rights. To her conclusion, human rights are fundamental to any form of democracy as popular rule. However, rights are the most critical issue today in terms of their guarantee and protection. The most important part of the ongoing debate and discussion is on scope and nature of such rights. This leads to universality

and cultural relativity arguments. To universality, rights are human entitlements. Man acquires such rights by virtue of being human. They are therefore homogenous and specific across all cultures. For example, Donnelly (1984, 1989, 2003, 2007) states, very precisely, that ‘human rights are rights one has because one is a human’. Argumentatively, such a statement provides a superficial understanding of the universality of human rights as it fails to clearly capture the scope of such rights. This does not annihilate substantial counterarguments posed by cultural relativity. In another setting, Henkin in Ambrose (1995:29) comes in to revivify Donnelly’s argument by demonstrating the universality nature and scope of human rights. He asserts that “human rights are universal moral rights that are fundamental to human existence and can neither be transferred, forfeited, or waived. They are demands or claims individuals or groups make on society and are deemed essential for individual well-being, dignity, and fulfillment.” This argument is broader enough to espouse universality of human rights in two expositions.

First, the nature of human rights is by itself universal. Being moral rights, it means, they are natural and unquestionable. In the same line of thinking, they are not optional but deserving to human beings. And thus, no one may be deprived without a great affront to justice. Some commentators have come to a conclusion that human rights are laws, principles, claims, standards, entitlements, and natural; their application is uniform across all geographical societies. Second, their scope is also universal in that; individual well-being, dignity and fulfillment are taken care-off equally because all human beings are equal. Therefore, their protection and guarantee should be universal. To that end, Fagan (2009:6) explicitly expresses that ‘human rights exist not to ensure life per se but to protect and promote the conditions for a certain quality of life for all. In this respect, human rights are inherently normative.’ That quality of life is intended to encase individual well-being, dignity, and fulfillment for which every human being deserves. It is argued here that there are certain omnipotent governing authorities and/or nefarious cultural practices that seem to infringe human beings from enjoying their natural or birth rights to the fulfillment of quality life. Therefore, universalizing human rights would, to a greater extent, prevent any vicissitudes.

Connectedly, Sriram, et al (2010) put that human rights are used to call for or defend certain actions. It is therefore, a demand to protect and defend human rights globally. This is justified

by human rights instruments. There are a number of international as well as regional instruments designed to protect and safeguard human rights in the world. These include:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (ADRDM) of 1948, Charter of the Organization of American States (COAS) of 1948, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECPHRFF) of 1950, Declaration of the Rights of the Child (DRC) of 1959, Convention against Discrimination in Education (CDE) of 1960, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966, International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women (ICEDAW) of 1979, African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) of 1981, Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (UIDHR) of 1981, American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ACHRESCR) of 1988, Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) of 1989 and African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of a Child (ACRWC) of 1990. UNESCO³⁸ is for a very long time being involved in global protection of the right to education.

The universality of human rights is generally, encapsulated by Shivji (1989:21) that “human rights are universal moral rights, something which all people, everywhere, at all times ought to have, and something of which no one may be deprived of without grave affront to justice, something which is owing to every human being simply because ‘he is human’.” With an appreciation from universality arguments, it must be acknowledged that universalism is continuously and vehemently challenged on oversight of material conditions of a given space and time. It is in this sense that human rights should not pretend to harmonize all the diversities globally. However, cultural relativity has a better explanation to encounter global diversities.

38 UNESCO is an abbreviation of United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization. It is a specialized agency of the United Nations Organization designated to contribute substantively on democracy and human rights with an emphasis on equality, peace building and sustainable development through education for all, gender equality, and fostering cultural diversity. Initially, it was formed on 1^st to 16^th November 1945 by representatives from about 44 countries for the purpose of creating an organization that would embody a genuine culture of peace. It was a prima facie mechanism to prevent an outbreak of another world war. Therefore, 37 countries founded UNESCO in 16^th Nov. 1945 by signing a constitution that came into force 4^th Nov. 1946.

However, UNESCO preceded International Bureau of Education (IBE) that existed from 1925 to 1968 with its premises in Geneva. Since 1969 IBE has been part of UNESCO Secretariat under its own statutes. Part of this information was accessed from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/about-us/who-we-are/history/ on 10^th August 2012.

Cultural relativity argues that human rights are specific to a certain locality. This framework tends to appreciate cultural diversities all over the globe. And thus, what may be defined as a right in one cultural setting must not necessarily be a right to another cultural setting. For example, the right to marry between two persons of the same sex may be a right to the Western culture but a flagnant to African and Islamic cultures. Fagan (2009:54) complements that “cultures and societies have differed and do differ fundamentally, and this is reflected in the existence of a bewildering range of different moral beliefs and customs.” The central focus of cultural relativity arguments falls into a contestation between individual rights and group rights. As universality advocates view individual rights precede group rights; their counterpart, cultural relativity argues that rights of the group are primordial to the rights of the individual. For example, human right in African context is mainly based in communal right.

Communal right is understood in terms of human dignity and access (Ambrose, 1995: 31).

Barrington (1995) clarifies human dignity rights in two ways. First, right to a fair share of the community’s resources. This is by no means an explanation to economic rights. And thus touches access to social services such as education. Second, the need to feel secure in one’s kinship or social system and in one’s exercise of custom, ritual, culture; and the need to feel that those who are in power have some legitimacy and are not arbitrary. It is argued that the second way touches socio-cultural rights as well as solidarity rights. To a greater extent security is highly emphasized. The main point put forth by cultural relativity is that there is no individual outside the society and thus rights of the society must precede individual rights.

This is an acknowledgement of societal values. Since societal values differ from one society to another then the nature and scope of human rights differ accordingly.

One justification put forward in connection to the nature and scope of human rights by cultural relativity perspectives is the existence of regional and national instruments to protect and safeguard human rights. However, various cases discussed by Ramcharan (2005) show that protection of human rights cut across regions irrespective of cultural differences. In addition, Ramcharan (2008:54) states vehemently that ‘there is a minimum body of basic

Im Dokument Private Financing of Higher Education and Democracy: The Case of Tanzania and Kenya (Seite 44-60)